Follow by Email

Wednesday, September 09, 2015

Roman Catholics often assert that Protestantism operates
under the principle that Scripture is open to private interpretation because
Protestants deny the need for an infallible magisterium to interpret Scripture. Is historic Protestantism really a religion of "me and my Bible?" Do the tenets of
historical Protestantism really deny 2 Peter 1:20, which informs that no prophecy of
Scripture is of private interpretation?

An honest and informed Roman Catholic understands that
Protestants do not think that Scripture has no need for an interpreter.

1. An honest and informed Roman Catholic understands and
will gladly concede that historic Protestantism affirms that Scripture is the
interpreter of Scripture. This is often referred to as the analogy of
Scripture.

2. Even for the Roman Catholic, Scripture interprets
Scripture with respect to the magisterium's basis for Christian doctrine. In turn the magisterium is to relay its interpretation of
Scripture to the laity. Even Marian doctrines are alleged to be derived from
Scripture.

3. Even when a Roman Catholic lay person offers an argument
from Scripture, say to reconcile James with Paul, they too operate under the
principle that Scripture interprets Scripture. At the very least, won’t a Roman
Catholic appeal to Scripture’s interpretation of Scripture to derive and offer proof of Rome's
doctrine for an infallible magisterium? Rarely does one find a Roman Catholic assert “the
pope has said so and that settles it.”

Roman Catholics not only often impugn Protestantism unjustly; they maintain a double standard in the process. I am not suggesting ill intent. I'm just pointing out what is commonplace.

More inconsistencies, double standards and confusion

Another common objection levied against the perspicuity and sufficiency of Scripture is that since there are so many denominations that hold conflicting
views we simply cannot know what Scripture teaches without an infallible
magisterium. An easy refutation of this
argument is that Christ held the Jews
responsible to know the Scriptures even in spite of the error of the teaching
magisterium of his day. Moreover, there is no Old Testament precedent for the need or
establishment of an infallible magisterium. In fact, those that would set themselves above Scripture were often to be disregarded utterly and completely. If the New Testament abrogates this principle then it should be demonstrable from Scripture, which of course would undermine the absolute need for an infallible magisterium. In any case, allowing for the premise that Peter was the first pope (and all that entails), how does one reach the grand conclusion of an unbroken lineage of infallible popes that would reside in Rome?

Indeed, the doctrines that exist within the entire set of
Protestant denominations cannot all be correct given that contradictory doctrines
exist within Protestantism. Yet that’s a far cry from substantiating the need for
an infallible magisterium, especially in light of Old Testament precedence as noted above. Nor do conflicting Protestant denominations imply that Rome has true doctrine.

A Fresh Polemic?Although in one sense
Rome has a greater chance of being correct than any given set of conflicting
doctrines, Roman Catholics are not able to argue successfully that Roman
Catholicism has any more chance of being correct than any particular
denomination that has not contradicted itself. Rome likes to compare herself with the whole of Protestantism rather than with a single Confession that is internally consistent with itself, like the Westminster standards.

Coming at this from a non-Trinitarian unbelieving perspective, we can
just as easily lump Roman Catholicism in with all other Trinitarian
denominations making the set even more inclusive. Given such a cataloging of
Trinitarian denominations and by employing the Roman Catholic's way of reasoning, one may just as easily ask in the spirit of Roman Catholic skepticism how truth can be known given all the opposing doctrines
within Trinitarian theology (Roman Catholicism included). In other words, Roman Catholic apologists often point to conflicting doctrines within the whole of Protestantism to create need for Romanism, the supposed arbiter of truth. Yet if we lump Rome in with all the rest of Christianity (and apply her reasoning) then her disagreements with the Westminster standards, for instance, makes her doctrine as questionable as all the Protestant denominations she would cast doubt upon. In response to this Roman Catholics might say that Rome claims infallibility whereas Protestant denominations don't. But how does the claim of infallibility establish actual infallibility any more than it points to absolute delusion?!In Conclusion

If Scripture does not inform the Roman Catholic magisterium
about what Scripture has to say, then who or what does? To deny that the popes
affirm the analogy of Scripture for the magisterium is to reduce Scripture to
brute particulars that have no discernible coherence, which would mean that the magisterium with respect to interpreting Scripture must be making things up as they go along and that any appeal to Scripture is disingenuous at best. Therefore, it’s not that Rome so much
denies the intelligibility of Scripture. Rather, Rome would have us believe
that Scripture is only intelligible to the magisterium. Consequently, individual Roman
Catholics should not appeal to Scripture to justify the Roman Catholic
communion and the church's need for the popes. Rather, Roman Catholics should be consistent by simply pointing to the
authority of the popes to defend the claims of the popes. That's viscously circular. And, it's an admission of being a blind follower of something other than Scripture, which is an embarrassment for Roman Catholics yet a necessary implication of their view of the church and Scripture. As soon as a Roman Catholic argues from Scripture he denies the need for an infallible magisterium. Once he points to Rome apart from Scripture, he shows himself to be a blind follower of Rome in the face of Scripture.